I just read a bunch of Isis’s stuff, and I just HAVE to make a comment here.

It’s kinda funny to me that you a successful scientist whose gender is of little concern in her professional life — in short, a situation that feminists have been striving for all along — isn’t qualified some how because she hasn’t suffered enough. You, as a woman who is secure enough in her role that she can identify and mock drama whores when she sees them, rather than trying to identify with them out of a misplaced need for solidarity (with the underlying implication that she, too, might be victimized ANY MINUTE NOW) is somehow part of the problem, rather than being the outcome they’ve ostensibly strived for all this time.

Welcome to the post-feminist world, I suppose. The ideal wife and mother is just another career choice — and if you make this choice, stop whining.

Whiskeyjack- In my opinion, ERV is more than qualified to comment on women-in-science issues (whether she opts to is up to her).
And pretty much everyone is ‘entitled to have an opinion’ (albeit not necessarily an informed one).

BUT… even dramallamas don’t deserve to get sexually harassed. No one but Sheril is entitled to describe how Sheril felt.
As I see it, how she felt is critically relevant to whether the effect of a particular incident was negligible (and making much ado about it would qualify one as a dramallama) OR whether a particular incident, while small in itself, represented just another needle stab of frustration in an excessively hostile environment.
I’d like to believe I’m not alone in that view; and that one doesn’t need to be afraid of being victimized to have empathy for someone else’s distress.
I’d also like to believe I’m not the only one who could empathize with ERV if, given the history, she were to regard Mooney’s complaints regarding ‘scientists unwilling to engage the public’ as little needle stabs.

Stephanie and Erv, I have serious blogcrushes on both of you.
Whiskeyjack, I realized long ago that the last thing I want to do is read Isis’ blog. That woman spends far too much time in a dreamworld where up is west. I can’t get my brain around her hallucinatory visions. Still, I do love womens shoes.
I wonder if I could come off any creepier in this post?

Appreciating your blog Abbie, and on occasion posting, I can see why you give Stephanie Zvan a bow. I bookmarked “Almost Diamonds”.

And a bow to Stephanie from me (a nobody science-lovin laywoman) for a classy, clear and thorough post on the situation. I have visited Pharyngula daily for a couple of years (ERV too) and I think Stephanie really did a terrific job of summarizing the situation regarding Abbie’s statements on the subject.

As far as this “Dr. Isis” woman:
-Apparently naming oneself after a goddess isn’t sufficient. One must mention one has “some” (as in more than one) “fancy-sounding” degrees (not listed) and therefore the title of “Dr.” must appear before the goddess handle.
– A lot of time is spent informing her readers of her busy day, before we get to the point. Berating you, Abbie, for a point you were not making. No kudos to “Dr. Isis” for evidence evaluation.
– She appears to denigrate her potential readers by referring to them as “little chickens” or “little muffins” and uses the pronoun “I” in every sentence. I would be willing to bet she is probably not gonna see a lot of traffic. Unless, of course, she encounters a surge due to postings on other blogs. In that case, she possibly would evaluate the surge as “evidence” of some kind of brilliant posting on her part.

I just find it sadly ironic that some women can’t stop identifying with the victim long enough to give their own heads a shake and ask if they’re ACTUALLY threatened or ACTUALLY harmed, or if someone’s just being a jackass. Really, the over-reactive hysteria and hand-wringing just undermines actual victims and makes men wonder if all women are as weak, foolish and hysterical as the one who’s yammering on about how rotten her life is because of those horrible, piggish men.

Agreed. M&K’s attempted defence of their book has put them firmly in the “whiners” category, so I can (sort of) understand why people may assume Sheril to be whiner when it comes to other things. Except that I don’t think you can or should make this presumption. Re-reading Sheril’s response to the unfortunate “welcome” she received at Discover, I see no reason to accuse her of her manufacturing drama. Absent evidence to the contrary, Becca’s suggestion that this “particular incident, while small in itself, represented just another needle stab of frustration in an excessively hostile environment” seems perfectly plausible. In fact, given the way Sheril introduces the post with a little history, I think this is exactly the point she is making. So, Becca, I’m also with you on this.

As an aside, I’ve finally had enough of that fucking ridiculous Isis character. Despite being a member of an organisation that is absolutely rotten to the core with very real sexism, she has now accused Ed Brayton of misogyny due to his particular preferences in jazz musicians. Srsly, WTF?!?

As an aside, I’ve finally had enough of that fucking ridiculous Isis character. Despite being a member of an organisation that is absolutely rotten to the core with very real sexism, she has now accused Ed Brayton of misogyny due to his particular preferences in jazz musicians. Srsly, WTF?!?

Sexism is only one of the crimes of the Catholic Church. If the church’s treatment of women as nothing more than baby incubators is not enough to make a person renounce it, and the institutionalised child abuse is not enough, and the policies on condom use that show contempt for Africans then nothing will.

“As an aside, I’ve finally had enough of that fucking ridiculous Isis character. Despite being a member of an organisation that is absolutely rotten to the core with very real sexism, she has now accused Ed Brayton of misogyny due to his particular preferences in jazz musicians. Srsly, WTF?!?”

Not to defend Isis, but it looks like that post is pure trolling. We don’t need to let her be successful.

On the other hand, calling her out for being a member of the Pedo Church is something we should be doing more often, given that her self-parodying accusations of misogyny are often for real.

Oh good lord!!
It’s Ed now? What the hell is wrong with that woman?
I wonder, is it all a joke, or is that the claim she’ll make later? Either way, is it the type of joke she would allow from a male poster without unleashing the bloodthirsty hordes?
I just find her to be an unsavory character overall.

Yeah, I’ve followed the posts and accept the conclusion.
Of course, like anyone confronted with evidence that supports their distaste toward another, I posted here before investigating.
Regardless, my opinion of Isis is unchanged.
Still love Ed too, regardless of his taste in music or other bloggers(teehee).
Oops, I did it again!(wink)

I’ve tried to educate myself on this latest bloggosphere storm, reading about it through all the links bloggers provided in their posts. As happens with storms, they tend to produce other, smaller, storms in their wake, like dust devils. Isis’s “What the Balls is the Matter with ERV?” post is one example of those. I find myself agreeing with your position on M&K’s book and it’s Chapter 8. I also question the motive of Isis in attacking you on that position, as she repeatedly cited your statement that you have not read the book, yet. Interestingly, she admits not to read the book, too. She also has stated on her blog many times her disinterest in getting into “boring” discussion about her religious beliefs. Nevertheless, whenever those beliefs are brought up by commenters, either on her blog or others, she becomes very defensive. Clearly, Isis is torn between science and religion. She examplifies perfectly why science and religion cannot co-exist. The contrdiction between the two manifests itself whenever one reads Isis posts on misogyny in science, where she is one of the loudest voices against it, yet she fills her mouth with water about misogyny in the Catholic Church, which she is a member of. And now, despite her efforts to stay away from discussions about her religious beliefs, she could not help herself, but take a swing at those atheists who dare to expose religion for what it is. Poor Isis could not help herself – she has brought up in a religious family and as a young child was never given the opportunity to choose. She was indoctrinated into this BS long before she could see and understand the evils that the Catholic Church promote and defend. Now, despite the scientific logic she posseses, she cannot cleanse herself from the brain-washing she went through early in her life. This is a phenomenon that many religious people find themselves incapable to deal with, and thus, whenever their religious beliefs are questioned, they reflexively find themselves defending the indefensible and attacking those who expose the religious BS. In a way, we should all feel sorry for Isis and offer our help.

As and when Isis decides to flame someone for sitting out a fight, you can justly indict her for hypocrisy. In the meantime, sit back and take your lumps for all of the shit you haven’t called out. Tacit endorsement, right?

Barring that, none of us is totally consistent. It’s one of those “human” things — and it’s her own damn business.

Given the lack of nonverbal cues on the Internet, I make it a policy of taking people at their words — at least unless they insert appropriate <sarcasm> tags.

Funny. I do it the other way around most of the time.

What I don’t quite get is that they in the same breath can berate people for 1) not crediting Kirschenbaum as a coäuthor on the damn book and 2) lash out at us for treating her the exact same as Mooney in our ridicule.

So referring to the twins as “Mooneytits and the honourable dr Kirschenbaum” would not be condescending?

Apropos of nothing – I haven’t watched the Bloggingheads between Mooney and Zimmer, but just looking at the image, I have to ask whether Mooney’s ill? He looks like crap.

DC, I admit I have a greater sensitivity to religious shit than to other types. That said, where religious indoctrination is concerned, I know a thing or two and Isis fits perfectly with those who were brain washed early in life and are literally afraid to denounce those who continue to enforce that very shit in her life. Surely, it is her choice to believe in whatever she wants, but by attacking non-believers for their stance and continually exhibiting her hypocricy she opens herself for “psychoanalysis.”

So it was joke. I ought to have followed the links before commenting. I should know better.

An understandable mistake though, after she fell on ERV for making light of accusations of misogyny just a couple of days ago. Either she has the attention span of a goldfish or “when the goddess does it, it’s not illegal”

At the risk of sounding pathetic and searching for approval, I’m going to ask a question about basic ethics. Anyone that’s noticed any of my posting regarding this issue on other threads knows that I claim parents are guilty of child abuse (let’s not get into the legal definition, you know what I mean) that raising one’s children with the threat that if they don’t believe a piece of bread is the body of Jesus they will be tortured in hell for all eternity . Anyway, my question is why M&K have no problem with that?

I am not sure why that, and so many aspects of religious indoctrination aren’t considered quite solidly abusive. I mean hell, I tend to consider all of it abusive, but apparently my feeling that way is only my reaction to the damage done to me by religion. Never mind the damage done by all manner of magical thinking, most of which is imparted by parents who are only moderate religionists or magical thinkers.

And according to Mooney, I am not terribly justified in blaming religious moderates for my own excursion out of fundamentalism and into the increasingly desperate attempts I made over the last twenty years, to reconcile my moderate beliefs, with reality…

Fuck You I’m Not…

Teaching children that evidence is only important, when it supports a presupposition is abusive. Encouraging people who are having trouble reconciling the notion that queers are human, with the bible that such reconciliation is possible, makes one responsible for people continuing to buy magical thinking. That the person teaching their children to think magically, believes in magic themselves, doesn’t make it any less abusive. That the person encouraging someone else to maintain their magical thinking in the face of reality, does not make them any less culpable.

And that is not to say it eliminates the responsibility of the individual so influenced to get past it, but it does show the damage that even moderate magical fucking thinking causes.

Anyone that’s noticed any of my posting regarding this issue on other threads knows that I claim parents are guilty of child abuse (let’s not get into the legal definition, you know what I mean) that raising one’s children with the threat that if they don’t believe a piece of bread is the body of Jesus they will be tortured in hell for all eternity . Anyway, my question is why M&K have no problem with that?

Willful blindness coupled to whatever complex brew of dysfunctional attitudes and self-deception fuel their desire to shut atheists up in the first place. Has anyone figured that out, incidentally?

With regards to the issue that I, S. Rivlin, DuWayne and Azkyroth are discussing and why M&K refuse to deal with it, my answer is simply this. Cowardice. It’s much simpler to point to the mean atheists. Also much more PC.

I could be mistaken but I don’t think cowardice is an attribute that is useful to scientific inquiry.

Lurking about… has anyone taken Isis to task about the fact that the only female jazz musicians she lists are primarily known as singers… in the music world that might be considered a little sexist in itself. Where are all the female trumpeters, saxophonists, bass players, etc? I am teaching at a music festival right now where there are a few female brass players who might want to have a word with the goddess…

I know a lot of folks read Isis and enjoy her writings, but for what it’s worth, every time I’ve visited On Becoming…, I’ve found something or other that I just couldn’t process — some bit of sturm und drang in the comments, some bit of venom directed at someone else I read and like, some ridiculous bit of CPP nonsense (who’s a little like DuWayne with his swearing, only he’s also always incoherent and wrong!), some bit of fluffery about her shoes or about how her shoes make her some kind of superheroine ultrawoman (Goddess, I guess), etc. And almost every time she accuses someone of misogyny on the intertubes — and I know I’m not the only one seeing this, Jodi thought the same thing — it felt like a manufactroversy, drummed up to whip the commenters into a frenzy. Something like what PZ is accused of doing with the atheists, in fact. I don’t doubt that there’s some misogyny there, sometimes, but I can’t distinguish the actual instances from the noise (like Ed Brayton liking jazz music ZOMG).

When I first started lurking about at Greg’s, I caught the tail end of the last big “Greg is a misogynist” storm, and Stephanie linked me to a whole lot of backstory on the drama. I’m still not aware of all the players in this drama, but I’m sad that I missed out on reading ERV all this time. I happen to love your style of blogging, lolcats speak and all.

I also had no idea Isis is a Catholic. Like, still practicing and stuff? If so, that gives me a lot more reason to dislike her, because now I know anything she says about misogyny is tinged with hypocrisy. Which sucks, because who then is going to point out the legitimate instances of misogyny and take them rightly to task?

“How about we talk about the time TomJoe was raped by a Catholic priest and totally liked it?”

Ewwwwwww. He probably tempted him with seductio accomodati spell and later used rape as an excuse to claim uninterrupted sexual fidelity to Terry Eagleton.

This could be Sheril’s book after “The Science of Kissing”

“Xtian Booty Calls: The sordid side of accomodationism.”

Re: the original post

Stephanie Z did a great job of laying it out flat.

The rapidity with which Dr.Isis and Zuska came to the defense of Sheril was by admission based on their past relationship with her and decidedly odd.

Also nn interesting admission considering part of their dismissal of Abbie was that she and PZ are pals.

Much of this dates from when Sheril re-labeled the Doctors Without Borders June fundraiser initiative into a global anti-rape campaign to induce bloggers to donate their month’s proceeds and a cyber-clique formed.

I support MSF. They are awesome.

But the proceeds they received during the “Stop the Silence” campaign were not earmarked for the treatment of rape victims, garnering rape statistics or earmarked at all. Most of their work lately, is what most of their work has always been i.e. the unique and horrific medical vulnerability of refugees.

Although Sheril’s ‘campaign’ was an example of Splendide Mendax, it is telling of an inherent problem that is decidedly at odds with the ethical and moral foundations of scientific pursuit that is repeatedly demonstrated by PZ and ERV’s detractors.

No matter how committed you are to your cause or how convinced of its rectitude it is not okay to lie.

I also had no idea Isis is a Catholic. Like, still practicing and stuff?

Apparently, according to everyone. But that blog is such a goddamn cartoon that it’s hard to tell if it’s just a “character” she plays online for giggles. I can’t say I have ever cared enough to poke around her blog for more than a few minutes before being bored or overwhelmed by the kitsch. It’s like being trapped in a particularly obnoxious clothing store in any big city’s “hipster district.”

All I see is a Scienceblog without any science (beyond her assurances that she is soooooo busy busy busy! with grant applications) or indeed much insight into anything, and my interest goes PPHHFT.

All I see is a Scienceblog without any science (beyond her assurances that she is soooooo busy busy busy! with grant applications) or indeed much insight into anything, and my interest goes PPHHFT

Meh. PZ gets that “Hey, I thought this was a SCIENCE blog” accusation all the time from the faithful (and of course the fatheists). Isis’s preference is to write about personal aspects of being a scientist/woman/mother/mentor. Some other scientists/women/mothers/mentors enjoy reading and relating to those topics, and some not so much, but that’s Scienceblogs for ya. Hardly the hive mind it’s made out to be.

“PZ gets that “Hey, I thought this was a SCIENCE blog” accusation all the time from the faithful (and of course the fatheists). Isis’s preference is to write about personal aspects of being a scientist/woman/mother/mentor.”

I get what you are saying and wish Meyer would spend less time “feeding the beast” and more time writing. I should enjoy Dr. Isis’ blog because there are issues in it that concern me, to wit:

Family and profession.

Aging parents.

Time organization/spouse and tag teaming the role of primary care giver.

How to isolate and diffuse the rage of dealing with administrative and bureaucratic crapola so that it does not burn holes in your interpersonal relationships.

All I can think of when she starts talking about Mr. Isis and Little Isis is, “Oh those poor guys, if she demeans them like that at home….ugh.”

*Face Palm*

Granted, ERV is not going for the Pearl Buck Award for Women in Literature, but her schtick serves important purposes:

1. You may find Lolcats and Neck Beards and Goons and b/tards a horrible indictment of the future (I do) but they are the future none the less and ERV is the only one on scienceblogs speaking forward and to the edge.

2. Down shifting from some pretty complicated virology to “BWWWWAHAHA GTFO!” makes it accessible without simplifying it to the point of being wrong.

3. Lolspeak is her designator for a shift to the heuristic bullshit meter of A.C. Graying i.e. “Every professor of philosophy needs a nine-year-old daughter. Mine has a habit of saying, “Daddy, that is a very silly idea.” She is always right.”

I don’t care what dr Isis writes about – if it doesn’t interest me, I don’t read it. Same with PeeZed and ERV and UT &c (I have to say, though, that I usually let PZ challenge me, so I’m more likely to try reading something I wouldn’t normally care for, if he writes or links to it).

I don’t see any reason to attack the “little muffins” either. It’s a schtick, and it’s hers to use. It’s no different from being an ‘ilk’ or ‘horde’ at Pharyngula.

I may actually take you up on that sometime, as I am going to end up in that neck of the woods eventually…Though it would be better as coffee or somesuch, as my meds rather contraindict alcohol and I haven’t been a big drinker for many years anyways.

All I see is a Scienceblog without any science (beyond her assurances that she is soooooo busy busy busy! with grant applications) or indeed much insight into anything, and my interest goes PPHHFT.

Actually, there are a lot of valuable conversations over there too, just not necessarily for those who are not and don’t intend to be women trying to balance career in science (or in general) with family life. Indeed, I have actually engaged in some interesting parenting discussions and some of the aforementioned conversations have increasing relevance for me, a single dad.

This is not to say that I have nothing but admiration for Isis. I am pretty militantly anti-theist and while I know absolutely that the post accusing my brother (Ed) of misogynist taste in music was a joke, I do have issues with people who are too quick with accusations of misogyny. But beyond that, I don’t have a problem.

I doubt there is a science blogger in the Seed collective, who isn’t bitched at about the science content of their science blogs (expect maybe Ed Yong, who apparently never posts anything not science)…